Named after Gov. LeRoy Collins (served 1955-61), the nonprofit Collins Center for Public Policy was established in 1988 to seek out creative, nonpartisan solutions to Florida’s toughest issues. Our work exemplifies Governor Collins’ desire for objective analysis and his vision for a better Florida

What it would do: This would add an amendment to the state constitution that attempts to prohibit the government from requiring individuals to purchase health insurance.

If You Vote Yes: A “yes” vote means you want the Florida Constitution to include a provision that prohibits the government from requiring you to purchase health insurance.

If You Vote No: A “no” vote means you do not want the Florida Constitution to include a provision that prohibits the government from requiring you to purchase health insurance.

Arguments for:

Supporters of this proposed amendment say the federal government cannot force people to purchase health insurance, and this amendment is an attempt to protect Floridians from that requirement in the federal health care act passed in 2010. They say voting for this measure would send a message that Congress overstepped its authority.

Arguments against:

Opponents say that despite its stated intention, this proposed amendment will not allow Floridians to opt out of the requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 28, 2012, that the federal requirement to purchase insurance is constitutional.

What it would do: This amendment would allow certain disabled veterans, who were not Florida residents prior to entering military service, to qualify for a discount on their property taxes. If You Vote Yes: A “yes” vote means you want the state to give a property tax discount to disabled veterans who moved to Florida after entering the military. If You Vote No: A “no” vote means you do not want to extend the tax discount to disabled veterans who moved to Florida after entering the military.

Arguments for:

Supporters say this amendment will benefit older veterans who were injured in combat but did not live in Florida at the time they entered the military. They say the property tax discount can help with medical bills and may allow veterans to stay in their homes longer as they age. It might also stimulate the housing market by persuading veterans to move to Florida.

Arguments against:

Opponents say state and local governments face mounting budget shortfalls in part because of diminished property tax returns brought about by the collapse of the housing market. Schools and local governments need to maintain the tax base or consider cuts to public services.

Members of the Florida House of Representatives begin their work on opening day of the special legislative session, Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2007, in Tallahassee, Fla.

Amendment 3: State Government Revenue Limitation

What it would do: This amendment would set a state revenue limit each year based on a formula that considers population growth and inflation instead of using the current method of calculating the revenue limit based on personal income.

If You Vote Yes: A “yes” vote means you want the state to change the way it calculates its revenue limit.

If You Vote No: A “no” vote means you do not want the state to change the way it calculates its revenue limit.

Arguments for:

Supporters say this amendment would ensure that the state budget never grows beyond a family’s ability to pay the taxes and fees needed to fund that growth. They say it would make government more efficient.

Arguments against:

Critics say that during tough economic times, when tax revenues drop and there is a greater need for government services, this amendment would make it impossible for agencies to meet demand, even when there is available revenue. They say it threatens funding for critical government services like health care and education.

What it would do:

This measure would provide for Senate confirmation of Supreme Court justices; give lawmakers control over changes to the rules governing the court system; and direct the Judicial Qualifications Commission, which investigates judicial misconduct complaints, to make its files available to the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives.

IF YOU VOTE YES:

A “yes” vote means you want the Senate to have confirmation power over Supreme Court appointees, and some authority over changes to the rules that govern the state’s courts. You also want to grant the House access to Judicial Qualifications Commission’s investigative files on judges.

IF YOU VOTE NO:

A “no” vote means you do not want these proposed changes made to the state’s judiciary

Arguments for:

Supporters say the measure would make the appellate court system run more efficiently and add a layer of accountability before Supreme Court justices are appointed.

Arguments against:

Opponents say the measure is a dangerous attempt to exert political influence over the judicial branch by giving legislators more authority.

Amendment 6: Prohibition on Public Funding of Abortions; Construction of Abortion Rights

What it would do:

This amendment would make the existing federal ban on public funding for most abortions part of the state constitution. It would narrow the scope of a state privacy law that is sometimes used in Florida to challenge abortion laws.

IF YOU VOTE YES:

A “yes” vote means you support putting the existing federal ban on the use of public funds for abortions into the state constitution; and you support eliminating the state’s privacy right with respect to a woman’s right to choose.

IF YOU VOTE NO:

A “no” vote means you are against placing the existing federal ban on using public funds for abortions into the state constitution; and you are against eliminating the state’s privacy right with respect to a woman’s right to choose.

Arguments for:

Supporters say this makes it clear Florida prohibits public funding for abortions and gives the public a voice in deciding state abortion law.

Arguments against:

Opponents say this amendment discriminates against women, strips away a woman’s fundamental right to choose, and erodes established law, including rights of privacy.

Note: This proposal was known as Amendment 7 until a legal challenge by opponents led to the rewriting of some of the ballot language and its reinstatement on the ballot as Amendment 8. This is the reason there is no Amendment 7 on the 2012 ballot.

What it would do:

This amendment would remove the prohibition in Florida’s Constitution that prevents religious institutions from receiving taxpayer funding.

If You Vote Yes:

A “yes” vote means you want to remove from the Florida Constitution a prohibition against the state funding religious institutions and replace it with a provision that prohibits the state from denying funding to institutions based on religious affiliations.

If You Vote No:

A “no” vote means you want to retain the provision in the Florida Constitution that prohibits the state from funding religious institutions.

Arguments for:

Supporters say the amendment would allow the state to fund programs that provide a valuable public service but are currently denied that funding because they are affiliated with religious organizations. They also say the current law that denies funding to religious groups was passed in 1885 and is rooted in anti-Catholic bias and should be removed from the state’s constitution.

Arguments against:

Opponents say the amendment would eliminate a long-established component of the separation of church and state that prevents the government from funding groups that espouse religious beliefs. They also say the anti-Catholic bias cited by supporters of the amendment was not a motivation for the law’s passage in 1885 and, even if it were, that bias no longer exists and should not be a reason for eliminating the ban on funding religious groups.

What it would do:

This amendment would give an additional property tax exemption to low-income seniors who have lived in their home for more than 25 years.

If You Vote Yes:

A “yes” vote means you think cities and counties should have the authority to grant a full property tax discount to eligible seniors.

If You Vote No:

A “no” vote means you do not think that cities and counties should have the authority to grant a full property tax discount to eligible seniors.

Arguments for:

Supporters say this amendment will benefit elderly residents on fixed incomes. They say the property tax discount can help with medical bills and may allow more elderly residents to stay in their homes as they age.

Arguments against:

Opponents say state and local governments face mounting budget shortfalls in part because of diminished property tax returns. Schools and local governments need to maintain the tax base.